To say they have not produced any Professional players is not totally true if you count the guys they have taken from the amateur game (I think 3 have actually gone on to play for GB)

I don't count them. The advantage of Sheffield being attached to the heartlands was they could fight for the same players that the traditional clubs are after. OK they got a share they developed into top players, but today in the pro game these players are already lined up for the big cashed up top SL clubs.

All were getting here is "that bit of your argument is not factually true" but firstly I did not say they didn't produce pro players, it was that they didn't widen the pool of pro players into Sheffield itself. Nor did Mansfield or Nottingham do that. Doncaster have spawned one current pro.

Secondly when they did get the Powells and Astons they could compete for them on contract value. Without the full salary cap to spend in SL they won't get the best and if they do they get someone who comes good they will leave if there's no money at the club and better prospects elsewhere. That's what happened when the money ran out at HKR.

1. The counter to this is that so is London, yet they've managed to find at least four separate backers in the SL era (Brisbane Broncos, Virgin, Hughes and Lenagan).

2. Their are backers out there. They can and do turn up. Considering how well the club has been run, I'm pretty confident they can find the extra backing in the near future to push on. As for players, they have the structures in place. Eventually this will bare fruit.

1. Three of the backers pulled out because the costs were too great, the fourth struggles badly. It's just not a "counter" at all.

2. Are they? people with £2M a year to lavish on tiny Sheffield Eagles for years to come.

Time to agree to disagree, lets sit back on this one and see who turns up.

1. Three of the backers pulled out because the costs were too great, the fourth struggles badly. It's just not a "counter" at all.

You said they were unlikely to find a backer. Nothing about them pulling out. A backer can pull out of any club. London have found numerous over the years. Someone pulls out, someone has come in.Even Crusaders manages to find another backer during their short time.Widnes. Wakefield. Hardly big clubs when they were taken over.

There are backers out there. They just need to be sold the idea. And the RFL obviously have to make sure they're a fit and proper person, not rush them through because they're expansion.

2. Are they? people with £2M a year to lavish on tiny Sheffield Eagles for years to come.

Time to agree to disagree, lets sit back on this one and see who turns up.

Why will they need as much as that? Just because London do?They might need a little more at first, but they've got a lot of things already set up. I just disagree with your point that they are unlikely to find a backer and don't see how you can justify such a comment. Clubs are losing money, but they are controlling them themselves in most cases. The ones that aren't have been taken over.

Given the number of posts I've made in the community section, you can take it as read that I know about Liverpool Bucaneers (RIP), Liverpool City, Mancunians RL, Nottingham Outlaws, Edinburgh Eagles, Bristol Sonics etc.

I don't count them. The advantage of Sheffield being attached to the heartlands was they could fight for the same players that the traditional clubs are after. OK they got a share they developed into top players, but today in the pro game these players are already lined up for the big cashed up top SL clubs.

All were getting here is "that bit of your argument is not factually true" but firstly I did not say they didn't produce pro players, it was that they didn't widen the pool of pro players into Sheffield itself. Nor did Mansfield or Nottingham do that. Doncaster have spawned one current pro.

Secondly when they did get the Powells and Astons they could compete for them on contract value. Without the full salary cap to spend in SL they won't get the best and if they do they get someone who comes good they will leave if there's no money at the club and better prospects elsewhere. That's what happened when the money ran out at HKR.

How Sheffield turned amateurs into pro's years ago was the way every club did it, since they reformed they have built from the bottom to where they are today, Rome was not built in a day as we all know and without a big backer IMO they have worked wonders by working hard and have become a blueprint for other clubs to follow (Including Doncaster who have posted a profit for the last two seasons) They have worked hard in a correct manner to build a club thats moving in the right direction and within the RFL guidelines, it is now looking like all the hard work could be bye passed as the RFL move the goal posts yet again to sustain the elite, I can see why Mark has got a little upset and I hope he continues with the route he is taking and hopefully the Eagles will be one of a very few clubs who will have their own structure in place to move forward when the time comes.

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

I don't count them. The advantage of Sheffield being attached to the heartlands was they could fight for the same players that the traditional clubs are after. OK they got a share they developed into top players, but today in the pro game these players are already lined up for the big cashed up top SL clubs.

All were getting here is "that bit of your argument is not factually true" but firstly I did not say they didn't produce pro players, it was that they didn't widen the pool of pro players into Sheffield itself. Nor did Mansfield or Nottingham do that. Doncaster have spawned one current pro.

Secondly when they did get the Powells and Astons they could compete for them on contract value. Without the full salary cap to spend in SL they won't get the best and if they do they get someone who comes good they will leave if there's no money at the club and better prospects elsewhere. That's what happened when the money ran out at HKR.

Who is the one pro player Doncaster has pawned currently.

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

It's about money for everyone of course so base your argument on that, and you can argue Bristol can become an SL side if they have money and Wigan can wither to nothing if they don't. Simplistic tosh.

The fact remains Sheffield have no money. Their director wants the RFL to pay for marketing the club to get their attendances up. He made no mention of any investment at all so back to the OP rather than people's silly obsessions and it remains the case that "Eagles for SL"?????

Few fans, no pro players produced, and no money = no chance.

The only clubs that get the big backers are the big traditional names. Places where you don't have to put vast quantities of money in.

Even Branson Lenegan and Brisbane pulled out of London knowing the scale of investment needed, Hughes does put loads in, but he has had to go crying to the RFL for help, and is threatening to pack it in.

Toulouse have money but as they have said (and as you and your ilk want to ignore) they are set to get it from such as TV deals, large business sponsorships, local government support, and yes 5-7000 fans to start with (Eagles ended on 3,600 fans). There is no "big backer" at Toulouse is there??

Can sheffield help get a better TV deal?? NoCan sheffield get big local business deals?? NoCan sheffield get Sheffield city council money?? No

Probably because there's no history/legacy of RL in the city unlike Toulose

So look at the facts not the dreams and fantasies, and try to just accept reality, that way we can progress the debate.

1. Yes, it's all about money. Hasn't everybody on been saying that. Sheffield do not currently have the financing in place. Yes indeed Bristol can become a SL side if they have enough cash. Wigan, when they didn't have cash almost went to the wall, lost their ground and, farther into the past ended up in the 2nd division on crowds little bigger than Sheffield achieved when they were last in SL. You are the one spouting simplistc tosh with your view that no team, ever, anywhere, no matter what they do can ever be fit for SL. Sheffield are making impressive strides. They do not yet tick all the boxes but given Aston's remarkable sucess so far in bringing them from absolute zero to Championship winners and making a profit, you are just plain foolish to dismiss their ambitions out of hand.

2." Few fans, no money and no players produced "are problems being addressed by the club as you very well know. They have, in fact slightly increased their fans and have further plans to do so. They have a fully functioning A team and academy set up. This will inevitably produce players. Don't forget Leeds to the same thing as Sheffield. None of their juniors are from the Headingley location. Everyone knows Sheffield don't currently have the money. Despite your bitter protestations to the contrary, neither you not I know what finances Sheffield will find, but, given their track record to date of continuous improvement, I wouldn't bet against them finding some extra sources of funds.

3. You are just plain wrong when you state only the big clubs get backers. London, Widnes, Salford, Hull KR, Perpignan, Wakefield, Huddersfield are all proof that small clubs can find investors. In fact, all of those mentioned except for Perpignan, have been in the Championships or, in one case CC1 in recent times, that's how big these all are.

4. Toulouse are an impressive case if their application lives up to the hype, but don't forger a CC club has been promised a SL place. Sheffield are right in the mix for that spot. I am sure they are planning to tick all the boxes. Toulouse are only projecting 5 to 7000 fans. Don't count your chickens before they are hatched. Sheffield are planning strategies to improve their attendances also. Why don't you wait and see if they can do this. After all Sheffield is big. The potential is there.

4. Can Sheffield help get a bigger TV deal, you ask. Well, if they are in SL, I would think the possibility of attracting many extra viewers to Sky from that area wouls certainly be a bargaining point when the RFL talk to Sky and others.

5. Can Sheffield get big local business deals, you ask. Why not. It's a big place. That's up to the club to explore and exploit.

6. Can Sheffield get local council assistance, you ask. The answer is maybe, I don't know. What is the situation in any British council ? It is unfair to use that as a bargaining point. France has a whole different ethos when it comes to public financing of sporting organisations, but I tell you what, Toulouse RU and Toulouse soccer will be ahead of Toulouse RL in any line up for public funds distributions.

So, you look at facts. Don't just dismiss published ambitions of the club as fantasy. Don't discount future sucess of this organisation given it's past record. Finally, as for the Rugby League legacy of the two cities. Sheffield have won the Challenge Cup, the Championship and have advanced from non existence to talking about SL in the last 15 years. What have Toulouse done? they havn't won much, if anything in French RL. They were a disaster in CC. They have been eclipsed in their own city by RU and soccer. I wish then success in their SL venture but I think you and others should take off the rose tinted spectacles. As we have seen in Wales, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

You are just plain wrong when you state only the big clubs get backers.

The actual stance I take is explained above. I think it's a logical reasoning and I never said that only the big club get backers, I said that it was highly unlikely someone would want to come and provide millions of pounds to Sheffield over many years.

Someone suggested Eagles must spend a few hundred grand on wages already and once given over a £Million by SKY with higher crowds they will be able to afford the salary cap. So why can't they compete? Why do they need all this money?

Then Oiseau said Les Catalans plan to spend £5.6M in Superleague this coming year.

Clearly the wage bill is not all a club need to cover in SL

There ara couple of excellent accountants on her with a handle on the difference between what you need in SL to compete and what you need in the CC.

Whatever way you look at it the difference is very large...........

All I ask people to do is tell me how Sheffield will cover it. Mr. Keighley please note.....

Wigan, farther into the past ended up in the 2nd division on crowds little bigger than Sheffield achieved when they were last in SL.

Just to pick you up on this one

When Wigan got relegated the actually had a small increase in average attendance, the average for the relegated season for div 1 was 5,110 and div 2 was 2,009, Wigan averaged 4,693. On returning to Div 1 Wigan's attendances went up to 5,497 against an average of 5,268 for that division.

Sheffield's last SL average was 3,422 against a division average of 7,555 in their next season, in the Premiership their crowds fell to 1,214 against a divisional average of 1,456.

You really know how to suck the life out of a thread Parky.....Blimey!

Sorry mate

Just answering the points made.

Few fans, no SL player production and no money = no Superleague.

If people are disappointed that things are such that Championship clubs are pretty much shut out of the Superleague old boys club they really should get hold of the RFL and Superleague Europe and complain to them.

No it doesnt mean that at all - the next best team meeting criteria should and would go up.

Crowds will never be good if a panel decides the club to go up as it castrates the match as a meaningful spectacle.

Sorry if this has been done since page 12 but i got to page 13 which got back to mergers and thought: before i lose the will to live i shall go back and reply to Lobbys question.. and then gauge my eyes out with mergers..

I take this quote as it seems to be the last one on this particular part of the subject..

The devil is, as always, in the detail.. but taking this at face, forum value i would initially have said no to your suggestion as it did sound as though you were saying that the best team on the field goes up if it meets the criteria otherwise no one does.. however, from this post it sounds as though you woudl keep going down the amalgamated 3 year table until someone does reach the standards (simplisticly) which is better.. however there are still major major flaws in this as a plan..

The main one being that it completely castrates matches as a meaningful spectacle.. once a team has a bad year they are done until the next amlgamated table starts.. a bad year would kill you off on the pitch. at least with the present way of doing it you get a chance the next year to do better and get to "tick a box".

I would point out as well that the teams still need to tick a box and this makes matches meanigful.. eagles and featherstone have just made sure that 2 more teams do not have the ability to bid against them.. the better teams on the pitch will still get the best chance to go up becuase if they keep doing well then they will stop the competition bidding.. I believe the Widnes "issue" of them going off the boil on the pitch was a bit of a one off becuase they knew that if they ticked the box then they were almost guarenteed promotion if other things added up so they didnt need to worry about the pitch again.. other teams know they need to stop clubs applying and also they know that if you win the championship 3 times out of 3 it is going to be very hard to argue that you shouldnt go up if all the other bits are in place.

Personally i think they should have a bias towards the better placed teams.. but to be honest i think that at the moment the balance is pretty good and the games still have meaning..

a panel will always pick if criteria are involved becuase someone will have to make a subjective decision.. even (as with RU this year) it is a case of whether we accpet a move of ground/temporary seating etc

I bet the 20 don't come from anywhere near Headingley. Leeds poach players from elsewhere in Leeds and even further afield. Their record of producing players from their geaographical location in North Leeds is no better than that of Sheffield in regards to Sheffield produced players.

I can see Parky's point about player supply but it's being overplayed. Sheffield have always looked further afield for players. In the mid eighties they signed Johnny Glancy and Mark Aston from Selby when no-one was looking out there.

A couple of months ago they signed two players from Northampton and one from Telford. Exactly who else is looking out there ?